PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent
and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement
for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the
agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to any sanction up to an
eighteen month suspension from the practice of law. See Rule 7, RLDE,
Rule 413, SCACR. We accept the agreement and impose a definite suspension of
eighteen months from the practice of law. The facts, as set forth in the agreement,
are as follows.

FACTS

Matter I

In 2000, respondent was paid a
retainer of approximately $5,000 to represent Client A in defense of federal
drug charges. During the time that respondent represented Client A, Client
A was also represented by Attorney Newman in an unrelated matter. In the course
of that representation, Mr. Newman obtained approximately $2,268.90 on Client
A’s behalf. In November 2000, Mr. Newman forwarded those funds to respondent
in trust for Client A. At the time the funds were forwarded to respondent,
Mr. Newman notified respondent of his claim to attorney fees from those funds.
Client A claimed he did not owe Mr. Newman any money and refused to allow respondent
to disburse funds to him.

When respondent did not receive
a copy of a written agreement between Client A and Mr. Newman concerning the
funds, respondent disbursed the funds to Client A and to himself without holding
in trust the amount claimed by Mr. Newman. Respondent did not prepare a written
accounting of the disbursement of these funds.

Investigation of the complaint
was referred to an Attorney Appointed to Assist Disciplinary Counsel (ATA).
The ATA notified respondent of his appointment by letter dated November 25,
2002, requesting respondent contact him within thirty days to arrange for a
meeting. Respondent failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the ATA
in response to his November 25, 2002 letter. On December 26, 2002, the ATA
sent respondent a second letter, again requesting his contact within thirty
days. This letter was sent to respondent by certified mail and receipt was
confirmed. Respondent failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the ATA
following receipt of the December 26, 2002 letter.

Respondent did respond to the
initial inquiries of ODC in this matter. However, he failed to respond to the
Notice of Full Investigation served on him on June 26, 2003. Respondent subsequently
appeared pursuant to Rule 19(c)(4), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and responded to
the allegations on the record.

Matter
II

In June 2002, Mrs. B paid respondent
a retainer of approximately $2,500 to represent her son, Client B, in a post-conviction
relief matter. Respondent fully investigated the case and adequately communicated
with his client about the investigation. When Mrs. B and Client B became dissatisfied
with the time it was taking for a hearing to be scheduled, Mrs. B terminated
respondent’s representation. Respondent failed, however, to confirm the termination
with Client B and failed to seek a withdrawal from the matter with the court.

Respondent was notified of the
complaint by letter from ODC. The letter requested a response within fifteen
days. Respondent did not respond to the letter or to a subsequent letter sent
pursuant to In the Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982).
Respondent also failed to respond to the Notice of Full Investigation served
on him on June 27, 2003. Respondent subsequently appeared pursuant to Rule
19 (c)(4), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and responded to the allegations on the record.

Matter
III

On September 24, 2002, respondent
was paid a retainer to represent Client C in a federal criminal case. Client
C entered a guilty plea on November 4, 2002 and was scheduled to be sentenced
at a March 4, 2003 hearing. Respondent had no contact with his client following
the plea. Respondent did not provide him with a copy of the presentence report.

Because respondent was not diligently
collecting his mail and because his office telephone had been disconnected,
respondent did not receive the notice of the sentencing hearing and, therefore,
failed to appear. Telephone calls were placed from the clerk of court’s office
to respondent, but he could not be reached. The presiding judge appointed new
counsel to represent Client C in the sentencing phase of his case.

Respondent was notified of the
complaint by letter from ODC which requested a response within fifteen days.
Respondent did not respond to that letter or a subsequent inquiry sent pursuant
to In theMatter of Treacy, id. Respondent also failed
to respond to the Notice of Full Investigation served on June 27, 2003. Respondent
subsequently appeared pursuant to Rule 19 (c)(4), RLDE, Rule, 413, SCACR.

Matter
IV

In November 2002, Client D paid
respondent approximately $585 to handle a bankruptcy matter. Respondent competently
and diligently represented Client D, however, the bankruptcy was dismissed because
Client D did not produce certain documentation required by the trustee. Client
D demanded respondent refund his retainer and provide him with his client file.
Respondent did not refund the fee as he felt it had been earned. However, respondent
did not send Client D his client file.

Respondent was notified of the
complaint by letter from ODC which requested a response within fifteen days.
Respondent did not respond to that letter or a subsequent inquiry sent pursuant
to In theMatter of Treacy, id. Respondent also failed
to respond to the Notice of Full Investigation served on June 27, 2003. Respondent
subsequently appeared pursuant to Rule 19 (c)(4), RLDE, Rule, 413, SCACR.

Matter
V

Client E paid respondent a retainer
to assist him in defense of driving while intoxicated charges pending in Georgia.
At the time respondent was retained, he was not licensed to practice law in
Georgia. Although respondent advised Client E that he was not licensed in Georgia
and that he could only try to get the matter continued until a deal could be
made or Georgia counsel could be retained, respondent did not confirm this arrangement
in writing.

Respondent sent a request to the
clerk of court for a continuance of the hearing. Respondent called to confirm
receipt and was informed that the request was denied. Respondent informed Client
E that he needed to retain an attorney licensed in Georgia and that his hearing
was not continued. Neither respondent nor Client E appeared at the hearing.
As a result, Client E’s license was suspended.

Respondent was notified of the
complaint by letter from ODC which requested a response within fifteen days.
Respondent did not respond to that letter or a subsequent inquiry sent pursuant
to Matter of Treacy, id. Respondent also failed to respond to
the Notice of Full Investigation served on July 31, 2003. Respondent subsequently
appeared pursuant to Rule 19 (c)(4), RLDE, Rule, 413, SCACR.

Respondent acknowledges he should
have confirmed both the limited scope of his representation and the status of
Client E’s case in writing. Although his failure to do so did not violate the
Rules of Professional Conduct, respondent acknowledges that documentation of
this communication with his client would have been the better practice.

Matter
VI

Client F hired respondent to represent
her in a bankruptcy matter. She was unable to pay the full fee at the first
meeting and agreed in writing that respondent would not file until his retainer
and costs were paid in full. Respondent proceeded to collect the necessary
documentation and to prepare the forms for filing. The file was complete when
Client F made her final payment, however, respondent failed to file the petition
on her behalf. Respondent ceased his work on Client F’s file without notice
to her, without refunding her fees and costs, and without returning her client
file.

Respondent was notified of the
complaint by letter from ODC. The letter requested a response within fifteen
days. Respondent did not respond to that letter. Respondent also failed to
respond to the Notice of Full Investigation served on him on August 19, 2003.
Respondent subsequently appeared pursuant to Rule 19(c)(4), RLDE, Rule 413,
SCACR, and responded to the allegations on the record.

Matter
VII

Client G consulted with respondent
about a bankruptcy matter in September 2002. She was unable to pay the full
$500 fee and $200 costs at the first meeting. She paid $200 and agreed in writing
that respondent would not file until he was paid in full. Respondent proceeded
to collect the necessary documentation and to prepare the forms for filing.
In April 2003, the file was completed when Client G made her second payment
of $250. Respondent informed Client G that he would not file until the final
payment of $250 was received. Client G did not pay and respondent did not file.
Client G telephoned respondent on a couple of occasions; respondent admits he
did not return the calls.

Respondent failed to respond to
the Notice of Full Investigation served on him on August 19, 2003. Respondent
subsequently appeared pursuant to Rule 19 (c)(4), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and
responded to the allegations on the record.

Matter
VIII

Mrs. H filed a complaint regarding
the manner in which respondent was handling her son’s, Client H’s, case. A
copy of the complaint was provided to respondent on February 3, 2004, along
with a request for a written response to the allegations within fifteen days.
Respondent did not comply. Respondent did respond to the Notice of Full Investigation.

LAW

Respondent admits that his misconduct constitutes
grounds for discipline under Rule 413, RLDE, specifically Rule 7(a)(1) (lawyer
shall not violate Rules of Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction
regarding professional conduct of lawyers), Rule 7(a)(3) (lawyer shall not knowingly
fail to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority), Rule 7(a)(5)
(lawyer shall not engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct
demonstrating an unfitness to practice law), and Rule 7(a)(6) (lawyer shall
not violate the oath of office taken upon admission to practice law). In addition,
respondent admits he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (lawyer shall provide competent
representation); Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information); Rule 1.5 (lawyer’s fee shall be reasonable);
Rule 1.15(a)(lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons separate
from lawyer’s own property; complete records of account funds shall be kept
by the lawyer); 1.15(b) (upon receiving funds or other property in which a client
or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
third person); Rule 1.16 (upon termination of representation,
a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a
client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing
time for employment of other counsel, and surrendering papers and property to
which the client is entitled); Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make reasonable
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client);
Rule 8.1(b) (lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority); Rule 8.4(a) (lawyer shall not violate
Rules of Professional Conduct); and Rule 8.4(e) (lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to administration of justice). [1] Finally, respondent
admits he violated the financial recordkeeping provisions of Rule 417, SCACR.

CONCLUSION

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and impose
a definite suspension of eighteen months from the practice of law. Respondent’s
request the suspension be made retroactive to the date of his interim suspension
is denied. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall
file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with
Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. [2]

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ.,
concur.

[1] Respondent was previously suspended for sixty days due to misconduct
which violated many of these same provisions. In the Matter of Kitchel,
347 S.C. 291, 554 S.E.2d 868 (2001).

[2]
Respondent acknowledges his reinstatement, if any, will be subject to Rule
33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, including Rule 33(f)(3). Moreover, respondent
shall not be reinstated until he has paid the costs of these proceedings,
which includes $208.00 in court reporter fees and $22.10 in postage.